Got it late yesterday so it was all low light and the difference was negligibleI'll try it again today in good lightIt's got the 16-70 f4 ziess

All up seems like a nice package

But AF does not even come close to the 5D3And the evf is pretty sucky in low light

I presume you are talking about one-shot AF mode speed and accuracy, not the burst mode? A6000 is supposed to have 11 fps, which surely has at least faster burst rate ( and more accurate?) than EOS-M's burst rate.

And yeah, EVF's really look bad in low light, even the "better" EVF in A7/R..

used it again in bright sunny light again and AF is indeed fast and accurate, probably at least as good as low end DSLRsstill i think the 5D3s and 1Ds i have used all are still an order of magnitude better than this but it is good. didnt try burst as FPS is pretty low on the my priority list as i just don't shoot like that even if i'm using a 1D with 10FPS

menu system sucks balls

and its got this annoying auto crop feature which i cant work out how to dissable (need to download an english manual)

overall though for the money with the ziess lens its a brilliant light package

its quite a bit bigger than the EOS-M so for me since i use the EOS M as a second camera to the 5Dmk3 i think i still prefer the M as it takes almost no extra room where as the a6000 takes a bit more roombut for my dad its a great camera

So now that I have LR i can look at some files properly from the a6000

my dad shot the first bunch jpg only and at higher iso the jpg rendering is abominable, i mean utterly useless better off using an iphone 5s.... and no thats not a joke. I would completely forget about using jpg out of this camera I would rather an iphone... unless all the jpgs are low iso and properly exposed as there is next to no shadow recovery ability on jpg files

RAW low iso shadow recovery is nothing short of amazing. ZERO pattern noise but obviously alot of noise gets pulled in so IRL you cant pull up too much unless you plan on painting in ALOT of NR. but still much better than canon if you like to under expose by 4 stops...

Colour... well... I hate it. After using canon cameras for a few years since switching from nikon I can't stand the OOC colour rendering and this is using the zeiss 16-70 f4 lens! everything seems to be very green heavy, I have tried some manipulation in LR but cant get it to get close to the colours i get from the EOS M or 5Dmk3. perhaps with alot more work colour could be fixed maybe PBD could give me some tips here because I'm not that good .

resolution at low isos looks great pretty much on par with the 5Dmk3 for details. high isos = bleh (really bad)low iso resolution vs EOS-M the a6000 wins but with the 11-22 the EOS-M is really not far off at higher isos the EOS-M is better if you get the exposure right. underexpose too much and its lost in fixed pattern noise.

all up after using both this and the EOS-M with 11-22 I prefer the EOS-M as a complete package (I know this is heresy and i will most likely burn in internet hell for saying it ) but the EOS-M is alot smaller, I like UWA lenses and the 11-22 is one of the most amazing lens purchases i have made in recent years.

I feel while the a6000 leaves the EOS-M AF for dead in good light (no much difference in bad light) the image quality of the EOS-M is overall better, better colours better detail across a wider range of iso's.

for my dad the a6000 is a pretty good camera though, he wasn't invested in anything, got a nice zeiss 16-70 f4 zoom for it and it's significantly smaller and lighter than a dslr which he definately did not want, My mum has a 600D and 15-85 which i got her. (I feel this combo is still better than the a6000 too as an overall package FPS is not really a factor for them)

All up my summary of the a6000 is that it does not live up to the internet hype. it doesn't come close unless you are looking at a few fairly unrelated metrics ie low iso shadow noise, AF spread, FPS. Higher iso performance and IQ is lackingIt is probably better at capturing action than the 600D and definately better than the EOS-M. the wide AF spread is good but not any different to the EOS-M which also has a wide AF point spread. For me the biggest problems are the rapid mid to high iso IQ loss and the crap colour rendering out of camera vs canon.

So now that I have LR i can look at some files properly from the a6000

my dad shot the first bunch jpg only and at higher iso the jpg rendering is abominable, i mean utterly useless better off using an iphone 5s.... and no thats not a joke. I would completely forget about using jpg out of this camera I would rather an iphone... unless all the jpgs are low iso and properly exposed as there is next to no shadow recovery ability on jpg files

RAW low iso shadow recovery is nothing short of amazing. ZERO pattern noise but obviously alot of noise gets pulled in so IRL you cant pull up too much unless you plan on painting in ALOT of NR. but still much better than canon if you like to under expose by 4 stops...

Colour... well... I hate it. After using canon cameras for a few years since switching from nikon I can't stand the OOC colour rendering and this is using the zeiss 16-70 f4 lens! everything seems to be very green heavy, I have tried some manipulation in LR but cant get it to get close to the colours i get from the EOS M or 5Dmk3. perhaps with alot more work colour could be fixed maybe PBD could give me some tips here because I'm not that good .

resolution at low isos looks great pretty much on par with the 5Dmk3 for details. high isos = bleh (really bad)low iso resolution vs EOS-M the a6000 wins but with the 11-22 the EOS-M is really not far off at higher isos the EOS-M is better if you get the exposure right. underexpose too much and its lost in fixed pattern noise.

all up after using both this and the EOS-M with 11-22 I prefer the EOS-M as a complete package (I know this is heresy and i will most likely burn in internet hell for saying it ) but the EOS-M is alot smaller, I like UWA lenses and the 11-22 is one of the most amazing lens purchases i have made in recent years.

I feel while the a6000 leaves the EOS-M AF for dead in good light (no much difference in bad light) the image quality of the EOS-M is overall better, better colours better detail across a wider range of iso's.

for my dad the a6000 is a pretty good camera though, he wasn't invested in anything, got a nice zeiss 16-70 f4 zoom for it and it's significantly smaller and lighter than a dslr which he definately did not want, My mum has a 600D and 15-85 which i got her. (I feel this combo is still better than the a6000 too as an overall package FPS is not really a factor for them)

All up my summary of the a6000 is that it does not live up to the internet hype. it doesn't come close unless you are looking at a few fairly unrelated metrics ie low iso shadow noise, AF spread, FPS. Higher iso performance and IQ is lackingIt is probably better at capturing action than the 600D and definately better than the EOS-M. the wide AF spread is good but not any different to the EOS-M which also has a wide AF point spread. For me the biggest problems are the rapid mid to high iso IQ loss and the crap colour rendering out of camera vs canon.

I haven't attached any images but will dig some out and post them.

Thanks for the info, although I'm sure this will ruffle a few feathers

All up my summary of the a6000 is that it does not live up to the internet hype. it doesn't come close unless you are looking at a few fairly unrelated metrics ie low iso shadow noise, AF spread, FPS. Higher iso performance and IQ is lackingIt is probably better at capturing action than the 600D and definately better than the EOS-M. the wide AF spread is good but not any different to the EOS-M which also has a wide AF point spread. For me the biggest problems are the rapid mid to high iso IQ loss and the crap colour rendering out of camera vs canon.

I was very keen on getting this camera, but your summary of the camera has me a little concerned ... when you get some time, could you post some images?

This thread has been remarkably civil and objective in spite of the numerous potential sparks. Great work, keep it up.It is disappointing that the A6000 does not live up to its promises. Anyone else with experience to share?

Dont get me wrong in good light the AF speed is truely amazing for a mirrorless accuracy seems reasonableI havent tried it in AF-C mode yet personally, my dad did but he is not experienced so the bad results are unlikely a reflection of the camera's ability in this regard. For someone like my dad thats coming from shooting with phones this is a great step up. and the zeiss 16-70 f4 is really nice and well made. ISO 100 Raw files are amazing for a crop sensor EXCEPT for the rubbish colour (which i'm not talented enough to fix easily and not really patient enough to work out how right now). In good light the EVF is good too. My point is mainly that this camera and the much vaunted sony sensor the internet love so much is hardly the holy grail they make it out to be

I thought I had better add (to avoid confusion) that the poor high iso performance seems limited to the jpeg filesthe raws seem pretty close to the EOS-M possibly a little less noise and the high resolution helps a bit.

here are a couple of 100% crops of unedited raws from the a6000 and EOS-M at iso 6400

I thought I had better add (to avoid confusion) that the poor high iso performance seems limited to the jpeg files

Thanks for posting the images ... I agree about the jpeg files, even the a7/a7R suffers the same issue with jpeg files ... I think it is the in-camera jpeg processing that is screwing up the images in my a7, somehow Sony is not able to work out a good in-camera-processing system for those jpeg files ... but the raw files are great ... so, I suppose a6000 also suffers from the same issue.

I thought I had better add (to avoid confusion) that the poor high iso performance seems limited to the jpeg files

Thanks for posting the images ... I agree about the jpeg files, even the a7/a7R suffers the same issue with jpeg files ... I think it is the in-camera jpeg processing that is screwing up the images in my a7, somehow Sony is not able to work out a good in-camera-processing system for those jpeg files ... but the raw files are great ... so, I suppose a6000 also suffers from the same issue.

yeah it's a pain since my dad has no interest in raw but i've told him to shoot raw and jpg then i can process any shots he likes for him from the raws.

but with LR the iso 6400 raw shots clean up pretty well and are totally useable just need quite a bit of NR added. its pretty much on par with the EOS-M at 6400 for raw except the extra resolution helps the a6000 keep a bit more detail after NR so processed images are probably a tad better if pixel peeping. Not pixel peeping you cant tell the difference.